A legal guide to Contract Works & Construction Liability Insurance in Australi

A recent Court of Appeal decision has determined that contractors can make payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (the Act) for construction work performed on mining leases, overturning an earlier decision by the Queensland Supreme Court.

A recent Court of Appeal decision has determined that contractors can make payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (the Act) for construction work performed on mining leases, overturning an earlier decision by the Queensland Supreme Court.

The true rule is that evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to assist in the interpretation of the contract if the language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning.

A DRAMATIC Federal Court decision this week means the net is closing in on the way big builders such as Lend Lease and Leighton undertake large contracts in Australia. As a result, the costs of Australian government infrastructure could fall between 15 and 30 per cent over time.

The Court held that this clause was in fact an agreement to agree on methods to resolve the dispute, rather than a prescriptive direction to the Parties as to how exactly to proceed with resolving the dispute, and was therefore unenforceable.

Security of payments – determination of separate questions - dispute under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)

In Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 36 (14 August 2013), the High Court of Australia held that the provision of on-site accommodation to employees during a period of protected industrial action was not a “payment” that was prohibited by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

However, in 2004 the Court of Appeal of New South Wales took a slightly different line inBrodyn v Davenport. Instead of analysing the question in terms of whether or not the adjudicator had jurisdiction, the court spoke of five “basic and essential requirements”

The decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd1 has been much studied and debated since it was handed down in 2007.